JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.

313

Dayton, of New Jersey, moved to strike out all providing for a Vice-President. This would solve the problem and prevent jealousies, natural between the President and the heir-apparent. John Quincy Adams remarked that the discriminating principle was well understood among the people, but the question of abolishing the Vice-Presidency was new. It might be well to consider it. But there was a general request for further consideration and Dayton, agreeing, cited the first of Madison's twelve amendments, proposed in 1789, on regulating representation in Congress, which, impracticable, absurd and a striking monument of legislative haste as it was, yet lacked only one or two States to add it to the Constitution. Not until the twenty-third of November was the subject resumed, when a tedious debate ensued, whether two-thirds of the whole Senate or of the members present could pass an amendment. It was decided that two-thirds of those present could act, and with this conclusion, the Senate proceeded to consider the report of the committee.

After rejecting both five and two as the number from which the House might choose, three was agreed on, though Adams urged five, as the House had already accepted that number.1 He further suggested an objection, that the acquisition of Louisiana made a change in the amendment necessary, because there was no alternative but to admit those born there as well as those born in the United States, to the right of being chosen President and Vice-President. Butler replied, citing the late treaty, that the people of Louisiana were naturalized citizens,2 a fact which disposed of their candidacy. But as to the immediate question, it was a reasonable principle, that each State, in its turn, should have the choice of the Presi

1 Annals, Id., 85.

2 Treaties and Conventions, 332.

314

THE DEBATE IN THE SENATE.

dent from among its citizens. Let the smaller States agree to this amendment, and the larger would forever choose both President and Vice-President. The change would violate the compact of the Union. True, it had been said, that if the amendment was not adopted, the Federalists would elect the Vice-President, and this, as everybody knew, was the pivot upon which the whole matter turned. Ought the Republicans, now in power, to do an act which, out of power, they had loudly condemned? But the report was adopted by a vote of twenty to eleven.

The debate, which followed in the Senate, differed little from that heard in the House. Smith, of Maryland, asserted that by limiting the choice of the House to three candidates, the will of the people would more likely be carried out. Who did not remember the recent election, when it had been seriously discussed, that in case no choice were made, a President should be created by a special law, leaving out of consideration the votes of the electors, and ignoring public opinion.? Was not a civil war seriously apprehended? If a person had been found to accept the Presidency under such conditions, "his head would not have remained on his shoulders for twenty-four hours afterwards." Hillhouse, of Connecticut, defended the existing provision, as it had been defended in the House. "If the amendment pass," said he, "nine out of ten times the election will go to the other House, and then the only difference will be that you had a comedy the last time and you will have a tragedy the next." The conflicting interests of large States and small had been apparent all through the government. Federal and Republican parties had had their day; new parties would arise. If the confidence, under the compromises of the Constitution, existing between the small States and the large, was once

THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES.

315

Why not elect Presi

broken, civil war might follow.1 dent and Vice-President by a majority vote? asked Bradley, on the twenty-fourth; the Vice-President being, in certain cases the successor to the President, the two officers should be chosen by the same ratio of votes. And he wished, in case the electors failed to choose a VicePresident, that the Senate should elect from the two highest on the list. His suggestion was rejected, but, after some discussion, he renewed it, because he wished to prevent the office of Vice-President from being "hawked about to the highest bidder." Hillhouse agreed with him, and reminded the Senate that there was not a word in the Constitution about voting for a Vice-President, and the discriminating principle ought surely to apply to that office.

Wright, of Maryland, supported Bradley and cited the resolutions of New Hampshire in 17992 adopted, with slight alteration by Massachusetts in the following year, in favor of amending the Constitution, as the precedent for his plan; though he wished the discriminating principle to apply to both President and Vice-President. Bradley's suggestion was then adopted.

Adams again objected to the number three, and, on motion of Cocke, of Tennessee, the number was left blank. This precipitated a debate whether the change from five to a less number would diminish the rights of the smaller States, or tend to defeat the popular will, or encourage intrigue and corruption, or, in the majority of cases, give the election to the House. Maclay, of Pennsylvania, took the unusual view that whether the number was five or three, the effect of the amendment would be to bring the Constitution into line with the State constitutions, and to conform the election of President and Vice-President

1 Id., 90.

2 Id., 95, where they are reprinted.

316

"HIGH FEDERAL VIEWS."

to the practice of the States in the choice of their executives. On the twenty-fifth, without debate, it was agreed that the vote in the House should be by States,-following the language of the original clause of the Constitution, on this point; and also, that the choice of the Senate should be restricted to the two highest numbers on the list. Thus far little had been said in support of the Constitution as it originally stood, but there were some Senators who wished no change, and among them, Pickering, of Massachusetts, the late Secretary of State, who, with a mind not unfamiliar with "high-Federal views," remarked that much had been said about the will of the people, but how could it be ascertained? From the newspapers? From private society? From resolutions of legislatures? Better avoid mere innovation. To his mind, the number three conformed more to its spirit than the number five, but it was best to preserve the federative and popular principles, on which it rested, unimpaired. He believed it to be the intention of the Constitution that the people should elect the President and Vice-President, directly. But finally, by a vote of twenty-one to ten, the number three was agreed to.2

This conclusion, however, did not end difficulties. How should the House decide between several candidates, say four or five, having an equality of votes? At this point, so many amendments were offered that it was decided to have them printed in order that the Senate might discover how the matter stood. On the following day, Dayton moved to strike out all relating to the Vice-President. This was pronounced out of order. Adams hinted that he had a number of amendments which he thought of pro

1 The State practice was, in most instances, for the Legislature to choose by a majority vote, in joint ballot.

2 Annals, November 29, 1803, 8th Cong., 1st Sess., 123.

TOO MUCH LEFT TO LOT.

317

posing. Pickering moved to amend so that the House be given twenty-four hours in which to choose the President, after which an election should be made "according to law." This led Tracy, of Connecticut, to remark, that Pickering's motion would lead to a dozen explanatory amendments, to which the Massachusetts Senator replied that the President might be chosen by lot, or the names of the candidates be put in a box from which the Speaker might draw one. "Why not throw dice for the office, the highest number to win it?" asked Smith.1

Adams objected to the existing provision in the Constitution because it left the choice too much to mere lot, and he offered an amendment that in case the House did not choose within a fixed number of days, then the VicePresident should act as President, but in case that office was vacant, the succession should fall upon whomsoever the law might direct. Wright at once reminded Adams that it would be impossible to put anyone over the VicePresident when he had become President. It will be remembered that as yet no Vice-President had succeeded to the Presidency because of the death of a President and it was not as yet understood that he would be more than an acting-President. Indeed, very vague opinions of his functions, title and powers prevailed. Might it not be necessary in the amendment under consideration, to provide for a vacancy in the office of Vice-President as well? The succession provoked sufficient agitation to lead Wright to say that "we do not wish to see a man seated in the Executive chair whom the people never contemplated to place there, and who never had a vote." 2 To clear up the matter, Taylor, of Virginia, proposed that in case the House failed to elect a President, when the choice

1 Annals, Id., 130.

2 Annals, December 1, 1803, 135.